Re: New Standardized HTTP Interface
| From: | Will Fitch | Date: | Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:29:33 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: New Standardized HTTP Interface | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-78535@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Will Fitch <willfitch@php.net <3Ó;÷k
> -¯ºEÝmailto:willfitch@php.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
> While not too specific to Rowan, reiterating the pecl/http approach is indirectly what your
> asking for? I have mentioned this numerous times, but you haven’t responded with a reason not to
> take this approach - which is an RFC that was presented for discussion prior to yours.
>
> I'm trying to understand how pecl/http solves the aforementioned problem any better?
> Again, I have no problem with competing ideas and it's not as though one is prohibited from
> presenting an idea for the mere fact that there exists a competing one. I'm just not seeing how
> pecl/http solves the problem I intend to solve better. The reason I haven't responded to you
> yet is because I'm stilling weighing the two to try and make sense of whether or not these are
> in fact competing ideas or complimenting ones.
>
> Please, feel free to weigh in with anything that contradicts or concludes what I'm saying.
> I certainly don't expect to have all of the answers.
What doesn’t pecl/http solve under your situation? The fact that’s it’s not directly
integrated as part of ZE and handling process?
I certainly have no problem with competing ideas either. However, the only proposed patch in this
RFC is a gist with PHP pseudocode.
>
>